Flaws with PCR testing

Login or register to post comments Last Post 0 reads   5 posts
  • Tue, Jan 12, 2021 - 10:57am

    #1
    Kathy

    Kathy

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Feb 21 2020

    Posts: 88

    count placeholder3

    Flaws with PCR testing

Stumbled across this YTer.

The longer this goes on the more I think this whole Covid thing was a tool to get the great reset.  In the coming months the PCR test cycle threshold will be lowered and the one liner from August claiming ivermectin isn’t recommended by the CDC will be quietly dropped.  The vitamin D levels will rise naturally, those who are tuned in will start using ivermectin and many more will get the vaccine. By June the numbers will be much better, Biden will be a hero, we will have fed coin, social credit scores and be beholden to China, who likely caused all this.

People will celebrate being able to goto restaurants not realizing they have lost much of their buying power and their freedom.

  • Tue, Jan 12, 2021 - 11:41am

    #2
    Martin

    Martin

    Status Member (Offline)

    Joined: Jan 11 2020

    Posts: 2

    count placeholder0

    Flaws with PCR testing

There is now report and inciative to dispute original search paper for PCR tests published by Eurosurveillance . For more information see this:

Review report Corman-Drosten et al. Eurosurveillance 2020 – CORMAN-DROSTEN REVIEW REPORT – https://cormandrostenreview.com/report/

  • Thu, Jan 14, 2021 - 06:37am

    #3
    tbp

    tbp

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 12 2020

    Posts: 844

    count placeholder1

    Official PCR “science” document deconstructed

^ Yep, on Nov 27, 2020, a international consortium of scientists in life sciences demolished the European PCR crime network’s official standard, the publication entitled “Detection of 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) by real-time RT-PCR” (Eurosurveillance 25(8) 2020), in which “the authors present a diagnostic workflow and RT-qPCR protocol for detection and diagnostics of 2019-nCoV (now known as SARS-CoV-2), which they claim to be validated, as well as being a robust diagnostic methodology for use in public-health laboratory settings.” The scientists point out “10 major scientific flaws” — that their diagnostic workflow and protocol for detection and diagnostics “suffer from numerous technical and scientific errors, including insufficient primer design, a problematic and insufficient RT-qPCR protocol, and the absence of an accurate test validation. Neither the presented test nor the manuscript itself fulfils the requirements for an acceptable scientific publication. Further, serious conflicts of interest of the authors are not mentioned. Finally, the very short timescale between submission and acceptance of the publication (24 hours) signifies that a systematic peer review process was either not performed here, or of problematic poor quality. We provide compelling evidence of several scientific inadequacies, errors and flaws.”

One of the 10 problems is of course the PCR cycles threshold, the main PCR weaponization mechanism, which they explain thusly: “Between 30 and 35 there is a grey area, where a positive test cannot be established with certainty. This area should be excluded. Of course, one could perform 45 PCR cycles, as recommended in the Corman-Drosten WHO-protocol (Figure 4), but then you also have to define a reasonable Ct-value (which should not exceed 30). But an analytical result with a Ct value of 45 is scientifically and diagnostically absolutely meaningless (a reasonable Ct-value should not exceed 30).” As critically important as this value is, “there is no mention anywhere in the Corman-Drosten paper of a test being positive or negative, or indeed what defines a positive or negative result.”

Yet, governments everywhere continue to use fraudulently high PCR cycle thresholds. Not until December 2020 was it announced by one US state — Florida — that disclosure of PCR cycle thresholds will be required.

The international consortium of scientists point out additional fraudulent aspects to the PCR testing protocol, already released when there were only 6 total reported deaths worldwide on 21 January 2020. One of these is “1a) Erroneous primer concentrations”: “Reliable and accurate PCR-test protocols are normally designed using between 100 nM and 200 nM per primer. In the Corman-Drosten paper, we observe unusually high and varying primer concentrations for several primers”, where they “advise 600 nM and 800 nM” instead. The point out that there “exists no specified reason to use these extremely high concentrations of primers in this protocol. Rather, these concentrations lead to increased unspecific binding and PCR product amplification.”

So this would add to the Ct fraud: by increasing primer concentrations you increase “unspecific binding” and thus amplification of other cDNA materials that will contribute to false positive rates.

In “1b) Unspecified (“Wobbly”) primer and probe sequences” they point out that in order to “obtain reproducible and comparable results, it is essential to distinctively define the primer pairs”, yet, in the Corman-Drosten paper “we observed six unspecified positions”, and this “high number of variants not only is unusual, but it also is highly confusing for laboratories”. In total “there are 64 possible combinations of primers and probes”, and these allowable “design variations will inevitably lead to results that are not even SARS CoV-2 related”. However, this “wobbliness” would only be a major issue if using two instead of three target genes: “The WHO-protocol (Figure 1), which directly derives from the Corman-Drosten paper, concludes that in order to confirm the presence of SARS-CoV-2, two control genes (the E-and the RdRp-genes) must be identified in the assay.” A third gene, the N gene, was not used “because it was slightly less sensitive”, which was “an unfortunate omission as it would be best to use all three gene PCRs as confirmatory assays, and this would have resulted in an almost sufficient virus RNA detection diagnostic tool protocol. Three confirmatory assay-steps would at least minimize-out errors & uncertainties at every fold-step in regards to “Wobbly”-spots. (Nonetheless, the protocol would still fall short of any “good laboratory practice”, when factoring in all the other design-errors).” So the “wobbliness” (unspecified/asterisk positions) only becomes an issue when specifically pairing the issue with the use of less than three target genes. “Consequently, in nearly all test procedures worldwide, merely 2 primer matches were used instead of all three. This oversight renders the entire test-protocol useless with regards to delivering accurate test-results of real significance in an ongoing pandemic.”

In “1d) Detection of viral genes” they describe how the Corman-Drosten paper describes 3 primers but that “these primers only cover roughly half of the virus’ genome. This is another factor that decreases specificity for detection of intact COVID-19 virus RNA and increases the quote of false positive test results.” Not only do they cover only about half of the genome as it was perceived at the time, their protocol doesn’t look for the beginning and end of the genome, only uninfectious fragments: “A better primer design would have terminal primers on both ends of the viral genome. This is because the whole viral genome would be covered and three positive signals can better discriminate between a complete (and thus potentially infectious) virus and fragmented viral genomes (without infectious potency). In order to infer anything of significance about the infectivity of the virus, the Orf1 gene, which encodes the essential replicase enzyme of SARS-CoV viruses, should have been included as a target (Figure 2). The positioning of the targets in the region of the viral genome that is most heavily and variably transcribed is another weakness of the protocol.” Coupled with 64 “wobble” variants and “high primer concentrations this is enough to create inaccuracies.”

So not only are the Ct values (amplification cycles) absurdly high to produce false positives, the detectable genome sequences themselves appear to be designed to favor false positive production.

I’ve yet to dissect the full thing, but their devastating report exposes governments and alleged “health authorities” worldwide as being immersed in unprecedented crimes against humanity.

Even the WHO has now (as of 14 December) released a guidance memo warning that high cycle thresholds on PCR tests will result in false positives. “So why has the WHO finally decided to say this is wrong? What reason could they have for finally choosing to recognise this simple reality? The answer to that is potentially shockingly cynical: We have a vaccine now. We don’t need false positives anymore. Notionally, the system has produced its miracle cure. So, after everyone has been vaccinated, all the PCR tests being done will be done “under the new WHO guidelines”, and running only 25-30 cycles instead of 35+. Lo and behold, the number of “positive cases” will plummet, and we’ll have confirmation that our miracle vaccine works. After months of flooding the data pool with false positives, miscounting deaths “by accident”, adding “Covid19 related death” to every other death certificate…they can stop. The create-a-pandemic machine can be turned down to zero again…as long as we all do as we’re told. Any signs of dissent – masses of people refusing the vaccine, for example – and the CT value can start to climb again, and they bring back their magical disease.”

  • Thu, Jan 14, 2021 - 09:13am

    #4
    suziegruber

    suziegruber

    Status Bronze Member (Offline)

    Joined: Dec 03 2008

    Posts: 225

    count placeholder2

    Bad Science Locally re: PCR

I have to have a Covid test today in advance of a minor medical procedure I am having next week.  I called the lab that is running the test to see what PCR cycle threshold they are using.  I was told that they have to get permission from their medical director to release that information because they have several different instruments processing samples and they don’t have a standard cycle threshold.  Unreal.  Supremely bad science.

  • Thu, Jan 14, 2021 - 10:56am

    #5
    tbp

    tbp

    Status Platinum Member (Offline)

    Joined: Apr 12 2020

    Posts: 844

    count placeholder0

    Flaws with PCR testing

I’m thinking that nebulized hydrogen peroxide (or chlorine dioxide) could be used to eliminate hCoVs etc just before a PCR test in order to insure a “negative” even if using 50 cycles like the Rothschild buttplug is using over in France.

Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 5 (of 5 total)

Login or Register to post comments